and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Sep 2012, 08:22

2

This post receivedKUDOS

12

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

59%(02:48) correct
41%(02:05) wrong based on 410 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to becorrect in the short term. B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

Show Tags

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenuesDefence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to becorrect in the short term. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scopeC. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scopeD. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.

Show Tags

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenuesDefence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to becorrect in the short term. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scopeC. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scopeD. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.

Yea, I think I get it the other way .

Govt thinks that the ban is the reason for increased revenue ( that means smoking does not play any part in the revenue ).

To undermine this we come to D , which says smoking is allowed ( under restrictions) and this might be the cause to lure more customers .
_________________

Show Tags

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenuesDefence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to becorrect in the short term. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scopeC. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scopeD. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.

Yea, I think I get it the other way .

Govt thinks that the ban is the reason for increased revenue ( that means smoking does not play any part in the revenue ).

To undermine this we come to D , which says smoking is allowed ( under restrictions) and this might be the cause to lure more customers .

I am thinking the following way. The passage argues, by giving evidence, against the objection that the plan would decrease restaurant revenues. We are looking for an answer that undermines the argument. A potential answer could state that the revenues in certain town didn't increase due to smoking restrictions.

Answer D - Provides that restaurants can have have separate dining areas, one where smoking is allowed, and one where it's not. This means that these restaurants will attract both smokers and non-smokers, thus increasing the revenues.

Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jun 2015, 08:08

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Jul 2016, 14:29

options A,B and C are out of scope optionsoption E provides information which is not of much importance to the conclusion of the argumentoption D is the clear weakener as it exposes the fact that smoking is still permitted somehow and not completely banned as the government intends to docorrect answer - D